Donnchadha:Scientific article on the Daily Mail? There's no way this couldn't be entirely made up and not factual in any sense of the word. No sir-ee!

JUST ASK THIS SCIENTICIAN!

He'll tell you that the homogay is not the result of some elusive gay gene, or even complex interactions between genetics, brain structure and development, hormones, and maternal-fetal immune system interactions, but rather by the evil tentacles of Satan working their way through the anal chute of your baby.

In an evolutionary sense, homosexuals actually do make sense. At least when there are siblings.

Single births, not so much. No genetic information passed on, though society still can coerce folks to marry, procreate, and still be closeted--more a social construct, but one that still forces folks to "choose." In an early evolutionary sense, homosexuals still contribute in the troop and tribal dynamic though. One theory is that particular stessors in the womb can force expression of homosexuality. Too much stress during a pregnancy means too little food, too little water, moving around a lot, that means the population maybe isn't served with more folks competing for mates. Homosexuals make sense in that setting: not competing for breeding, but still contributing to the well being of their families, and siblings. Those siblings share genes, and thus, a gay or lesbian sibling IS contributing to the passing on of genes, and helping their siblings' children. In a troop or tribal setting, those individuals are still valuable to the survival of the whole, while not adding to the stress of finding mates for the breeders. The species has non-breeders who contribute to the survival of the whole, and their siblings, and take some of the stress off the community as a whole, and help ensure the survival of the whole. Those traits are still passed on through their siblings, and thus the traits ARE survival related, though not in the most direct sense. Those who have homosexual siblings still pass on their genes, and then perhaps a generation or two down the line, stressors again trigger, and lo, the cycle begins anew, still conserving that gene for the survival of those related.

Artificial stressors triggering this sort of genetic mechanism would make some sense. The mother's body doesn't make a conscious "decision" to "make" a baby homosexual, but a mechanism linked to stress or conditions would make some sense. The tribe is under stress, competition would be increased, and homosexuality would be good for the whole genetic line, and thus, our ability to KEEP putting out yowuns makes some sense, and likewise, the family unit is maintained and cared for.

Not provable, at least without a lot more testing on stressed populations, but there are studies that show populations that have undergone a great amount of stress, like during the Blitz in England, have had increased rates of homosexuality beyond the usual 10%. It will probably take a few more generations of study to sous it out, but I suspect that we're on the right track. These variations aren't exactly "non-survival" as much as conservation within the species. Our complex social lives IS a survival trait, and we've been breeding for a couple of hundred thousand years to cement survival traits, and not all of them are as straightforward as "Thag f*cks b*tches!"

How long did it take to breed dogs like dachshunds, who are fair far from the usual model for wild dogs? To breed not just for body traits, but behavior and attitude? Humans have been self selecting traits, and in social units for a damn sight longer than the 3000 BC that short legged hounds have been found in human settlements. We have continued to select traits that continue to conserve these variations, and that suggests that they aren't just normal and natural, they are actually traits that have helped us survive for a long ass while...

hubiestubert:In an evolutionary sense, homosexuals actually do make sense. At least when there are siblings.

Single births, not so much. No genetic information passed on, though society still can coerce folks to marry, procreate, and still be closeted--more a social construct, but one that still forces folks to "choose." In an early evolutionary sense, homosexuals still contribute in the troop and tribal dynamic though. One theory is that particular stessors in the womb can force expression of homosexuality. Too much stress during a pregnancy means too little food, too little water, moving around a lot, that means the population maybe isn't served with more folks competing for mates. Homosexuals make sense in that setting: not competing for breeding, but still contributing to the well being of their families, and siblings. Those siblings share genes, and thus, a gay or lesbian sibling IS contributing to the passing on of genes, and helping their siblings' children. In a troop or tribal setting, those individuals are still valuable to the survival of the whole, while not adding to the stress of finding mates for the breeders. The species has non-breeders who contribute to the survival of the whole, and their siblings, and take some of the stress off the community as a whole, and help ensure the survival of the whole. Those traits are still passed on through their siblings, and thus the traits ARE survival related, though not in the most direct sense. Those who have homosexual siblings still pass on their genes, and then perhaps a generation or two down the line, stressors again trigger, and lo, the cycle begins anew, still conserving that gene for the survival of those related.

Artificial stressors triggering this sort of genetic mechanism would make some sense. The mother's body doesn't make a conscious "decision" to "make" a baby homosexual, but a mechanism linked to stress or conditions would make some sense. The tribe is under stress, competition would be increased, and hom ...

stevenvictx:hubiestubert: In an evolutionary sense, homosexuals actually do make sense. At least when there are siblings.

Single births, not so much. No genetic information passed on, though society still can coerce folks to marry, procreate, and still be closeted--more a social construct, but one that still forces folks to "choose." In an early evolutionary sense, homosexuals still contribute in the troop and tribal dynamic though. One theory is that particular stessors in the womb can force expression of homosexuality. Too much stress during a pregnancy means too little food, too little water, moving around a lot, that means the population maybe isn't served with more folks competing for mates. Homosexuals make sense in that setting: not competing for breeding, but still contributing to the well being of their families, and siblings. Those siblings share genes, and thus, a gay or lesbian sibling IS contributing to the passing on of genes, and helping their siblings' children. In a troop or tribal setting, those individuals are still valuable to the survival of the whole, while not adding to the stress of finding mates for the breeders. The species has non-breeders who contribute to the survival of the whole, and their siblings, and take some of the stress off the community as a whole, and help ensure the survival of the whole. Those traits are still passed on through their siblings, and thus the traits ARE survival related, though not in the most direct sense. Those who have homosexual siblings still pass on their genes, and then perhaps a generation or two down the line, stressors again trigger, and lo, the cycle begins anew, still conserving that gene for the survival of those related.

Artificial stressors triggering this sort of genetic mechanism would make some sense. The mother's body doesn't make a conscious "decision" to "make" a baby homosexual, but a mechanism linked to stress or conditions would make some sense. The tribe is under stress, competition would be incr ...

Anyone who posts that much crap on a site like this has NOTHING useful to say... I am amazed you actually read it.

hubiestubert:Humans have been self selecting traits, and in social units for a damn sight longer than the 3000 BC that short legged hounds have been found in human settlements. We have continued to select traits that continue to conserve these variations, and that suggests that they aren't just normal and natural, they are actually traits that have helped us survive for a long ass while..

truelook at all the gay republicans who are married with childrenI guess maybe that is what religious breeding does ...